Archive for the ‘Three Worlds Theory/application’ Category

We can now see that the whole political trajectory of the “RCP” and the left-wing of parasitism took shape under the stress of two types of events and a background of white nationalism. One type of event was the general FBI/COINTELPRO repression of the political movements. In this we can count a struggle such as Wounded Knee. Another event was the Iranian Revolution of 1979, which had a strong Maoist component but ended up going Islamic.

Prior to the Iranian Revolution’s solidifying as Islamic, the one thing the “RCP” did right was to agitate against the U.$. reaction to the “hostage crisis” in Iran that dogged Carter. At the time, the Amerikan public was in a war-mongering mood against Iran.

Following the decisive defeat of Maoist forces in Iran, the “RCP” overreacted and went in a permanent Trotskyist direction. Combined with the blows from the FBI, there was a deadly brew arising in the early 1980s.

Both the COINTELPRO and Iran struggles caused an overreaction favoring the CIA. MIM has pointed out that it is the CIA with the capabilities to rot out a revolution from within and in that sense it is more dangerous than any police organization. An arrest and railroad charge will be seen by the people, but some of what the CIA does in diplomacy and various covert operations is difficult for the people to see.

The FBI activities also made it “cool” to side with the mafia. The whole approach where every extortion, every threat, every violation of privacy is called “free speech” is mafia-inspired.

After the Maoist defeat including repression of Maoists in Iran, the Amerikan Maoists did not maintain united front with Iran against U.$. imperialism. Articles paid lip service to opposing war, while in action, the organization synchronized with the neo-conservatives. The “RCP” also built fraternal ties with an organization openly favoring U.$. invasion of Iran.

Trotskyism has always had a bigger emphasis on party-building than the united front and so it was in the direction of Trotskyism that “RCP” lip service articles turned, most notably in “Conquer the World.”

On the surface, it may seem to activists that the “RCP” did the right thing by leaning to the CIA and mafia side against the FBI. Yet it all depends on how far that tactical approach goes, and unfortunately, the “RCP” turned it into a strategy.

Not in lip service in its newspaper, but in deeds, the “RCP” was by the late 1990s in lockstep with imperialists preparing war in Iraq and Afghanistan, particularly the neo-conservatives who like the “RCP” now placed absolutist value on U.$. gender culture being superior to Islamic gender culture.

The mafia has an interest in selling weapons in war-created black markets and the CIA has an interest in penetrating everywhere. Yet the “RCP” had no difficulty joining in counter-terrorism operations against MIM, lynching to support the coming Afghan war.

Careful study of the Che-Libs will show the “RCP” attacking MIM for the benefit of cops. More importantly, activists have to open their minds to the differing interests of the mafia and CIA. If one puts all the focus on the FBI, it boils down to self-preservation of the left-wing of parasitism only.

Staying free of the FBI and its repression is not a victory if the cost is to help the CIA, mafia and neo-conservatives with their war preparations.

I am pleased that in recent weeks, a decisive portion of the professional national security community, a separate swath of the intelligence community and now non-intelligence community intellectuals have gained access to some documents from the late 1990s in connection to what I refer to derisively as Che-Libs. They have given me Aesopian confirmation of being able to participate in what was only a small circle of debaters.

For the most part, obtuse racism as demonstrated on the labor aristocracy and superprofits questions blocked my struggle of the late 1990s. Supposed Marxists who did not give a hoot when there was no evidence for white worker exploitation also naturally did not give a hoot when a middle-class professional like myself ended up lynched. The people involved were gullible and presumptuous racists of the sort who did not EVER think to ask me about the CIA, KGB and U.$. military intelligence involvement in the story presumptuous people thought they understood.

Perhaps the only successful thing I did was say so many outrageous things that people collected the struggle to hard drives. Especially of note I did get British government attention, which is important not because the Brits are leading anti-militarists but because the British government might have had specific objections to the peculiar deal going down and had no vested interests in the Democrats per se. Alternatively, perhaps a portion of the British government was involved in the whole scheme.

Now people are picking up on various racist nuances of that struggle that I had not mentioned. This is a bright spot. In the old days, struggles like mine would have disappeared under the rug.

I have increasing confidence that though I may have sold my own ethnic group short by not taking up intra-bourgeois professional struggles and allowing myself to be sullied, there are now increasing percentages of people who are taking up the struggle.

As a recent You Tube video about Michael Jackson saying he was assassinated asks, I also ask what the agenda was for running a Black candidate with a background in lynching. An example of one answer that comes to mind is again the KKK, which long ago took to appearing with Black nationalist leaders to advocate for a white national state and Black national state. MIM also supports national liberation, but we have not called for any lynchings.

According to recent “Rasmussen Reports” polls, the public does not support the liberals, conservatives or center but seeks self-government. That is Rasmussen’s explanation for the turbulence in politics we see. Connected to that could be that the youth are increasingly oppressed nationalities that may want to go their own way in self-determination of nations, whether they consciously know that or not.

It may seem odd to readers that ANY Blacks would join a group with KKK ideologies, but it has in fact happened and there are records to that effect. The “RCP” marched with the KKK in the Boston school integration struggle and published self-criticism along those lines, self-criticism MIM would ordinarily honor, except that we see the follow-up with Islamophobia and my lynching. There is no doubt that there are some Blacks in the “RCP.”

Well it’s not too much mystery. The “RCP” has a multi-million dollar budget. People like Obama and other organizers are paid. The only mystery is why various “activists” do not question the source of money and the motivations of the leaders, and this in connection to a newspaper repeatedly kissing William Kunstler’s ass.

We received a recent attack from Obamauton number one on Peru. It’s again ad hominem, but in revealing ways. Obama is in better position now to put together what happened in Peru and his Obamauton perhaps makes a couple back-handed admissions.

I did not apply for leadership of the “Revolutionary Communist Party” in 1983. I did apply for mere membership before founding the Maoist Internationalist Movement in 1984.

However, had I been the leader of the “RCP” by at least the end of the 1980s, you can bet there would have been no labor aristocracy tourism to Peru: perhaps with an improved understanding of the true line, the revolution in Peru would have made it instead of being crushed by the Clinton-Kennedy machine.

Had I been the leader of “RCP,” there would have been no crap about a bunch of “objectively revolutionary” white males up here just waiting for a chance to bust out for revolution. MIM consistently opposed “revolutionary” tourism with which secret services could provide the revolution bad company.

The Avakianites were busy putting up posters “Revolution in the ’80s, Go for It!” It does no good that they made self-criticism on this point only to come back and spout ad hominem attacks on the same point now. The substance question is whether Peru’s revolution was sufficiently prepared for CIA infiltration efforts and would giving up on Amerikan “working class” revolution have improved Peruvian security. However, the Obamautons still have no position of substance on that.

The Obama approval rating fell faster than for any president in the first year in office in the last 50 years.(1) That is thanks to the international united front, not anything spectacular anyone did here, just as was the case for Bush Jr.’s decline in popularity.

Nonetheless, the Obama counterrevolution is the most difficult burden the international united front will ever face from a U.S. president, because the Obama presidency had the design of giving fatal Kool Aid to the movements of the oppressed, from within.

I’ve been approached by three or four mainstream foreign policy organizations. I have not joined, mostly because I do not wish to send an incorrect signal to the international united front on the prospects for diplomacy. What I see is that Amerika would like to be weaker economically before it makes a serious deal. Instead of through clever tactics and diplomats, balance will occur through a general shift in power over years of time.

On a practical level, too much time can go into reading Aesopian drivel of the Western Liberals in their media. Too little of it proves accurate to be worth the time. When I was 18, the “Harvard Crimson” was already covering me in that snide between-the-lines way of the Liberal intellectuals. If we spend too much time with these intellectuals in their career parsing, we will miss out on studying the large trends of history and we will end up ineffective like Avakian-Obama-Kasama robots.

Recently I recommended that the international united front send some intellectuals with the purpose of producing feminist revolutionary leaders here, 10, 20 or even 50 years down the road if it takes a second generation to really absorb the culture. I suspect we are going to see a wave along these lines from Asian-unAmerikkkans, pretty soon, 10 or 20 years from now.

I see others from the Third World training in diplomacy here. That’s good, but if we have people with the academic inclinations, I still think they should study the overall picture as deeply as they can. That way power dynamics will be understood before one takes up diplomacy.

I’ve cut back reading news 95% and hope to right my financial situation and do cultural work. I’m simply too outnumbered by racist extremists here to do otherwise. I’m still proud of my achievements. I do not believe I took too isolationist a road. Reality is just an uneven battle here.

It is not an easy choice to give up on diplomacy. At this moment, I am looking at the international middle forces as the main reason to take up diplomacy. I believe two or three countries have the power to shape the next few years, with relatively easy action in the next month, or two or three. If I see that, then I may return to foreign policy and join a mainstream group for professional purposes. It’s unlikely that the imperialists are going to give me what I asked for directly, so it will have to be middle forces.

I hope the middle forces did not drink the Kool Aid, but one has to consider the possibility. To see that, one must not have so many chefs spoiling the soup.

If I do take up professional duties in foreign affairs this spring or summer, readers should see it as a career change, not a line change. It would be out of respect for international middle forces and the leverage they provide for an individual.

I’m on break and trying to shift away from political and foreign affairs work. It seems to me we enter a period in which the proletariat will be on offensive, possibly without the degree of middle forces support one would hope for. If that is the case, Amerika may find itself decline nonetheless, and the proletariat can look at diplomacy several years or a decade down the road.

When a party’s economic analysis is upside-down, everything else will be wrong. Because the Democratic Party opportunists acting as Trojan Horses in our communist movement espouse that Amerikans are exploited, they act exactly opposite as MIM would act.

While we say we would sacrifice on abortion, healthcare, gun control and the budget to achieve independence for Palestine, they say the opposite. Palestinian lives are lost as ever with Obama in power. This leaves the anti-imperialist movement two choices: it can conclude the United $tates is not relevant to the Mideast or it can conclude that it makes a big difference to reject phony Maoism. The first is a whitewash of U.$. imperialism.

Related to that is the case of my lynching. Here the Democrats have argued that the right to lynch has to be defended as “free speech” supporting healthcare, the nomination of a Supreme Court justice and countless other items that any other liberal Democrat without the lynching in the background could have done.

Bash the Pope while defending the CIA and the mafia the Obamautons will do as long as the right to lynch ends up justified. Vote for healthcare to justify the right of white females to lynch — and so on. And the “so on” is a long list including bashing religion in order to support the Afghan war in deeds, if not always in the hardly read newspaper of the Obakianites.

Now the Obamautons hand out money to insurance companies as another huge benefit for Amerikans. In that way they consolidate support for imperialism while slapping Asian-Amerikans in the face, yet again.

In a strange way, the Obakianites agree with us that the principal contradiction is between imperialism and oppressed nations. We sacrifice on lesser issues to gain on independence of colonies and lynching while the Obamautons sacrifice on peripheral issues to maintain the right to lynch and occupy. The Obamautons take the side of imperialism, as is only logical given their flawed underlying economic analysis.

A Liberal does not see a principal contradiction, no need for focus, just individual struggles. The counterrevolution by contrast does have focus in trying to mirror MIM, but on behalf of the oppressor.

A Lebanese man faces a death sentence in Saudi Arabia for sorcery: “According to his lawyer, Sibat, who is 48 and has five children, would predict the future on his show and give out advice to his audience.”(1) We here at MIM should also be charged with sorcery.

We are now in the second greatest economic crisis the United $tates has faced in the last 100 years. There is still time for this crisis to surpass the Great Depression depending on what happens next.

During the 2008 campaign, Obama brought out the tired old left-wing of parasitism idea that Amerikan “workers” only have false consciousness, divided over abortion and other such “wedge issues.” The left-wing of parasitism continues to believe that the majority of Amerikans are “exploited.” These phony leftists constantly predicted economic depression since World War II and they were wrong every time.

In contrast, MIM predicted one big crisis, this one. We hold that the Amerikans are not “exploited” in their majority and we even said that an economic crisis would have to be severe and long for re-proletarianization to occur. The first reaction to economic crisis would be an accelerated move to recapture old privileges.

We were correct.

Here is what we said about Nazi Germany:

“Nonetheless, despite the devastation of the war and the dire economic conditions, ‘re-proletarianization’ was little in evidence. The German population continued to complain about reparations, land claims and much more. The subjective will to build a socialist Germany did not exist in a widespread way prior to the Red Army’s seizing power in Germany and even well after. The Soviet occupation accomplished land reform and reparations that undercut the Nazis. Since the popular will for socialist construction did not exist with its own German ‘umph’ it was crucial that the Red Army imposed land reform, a successful referendum for expropriation and reparations to the Soviet Union that laid the eventual basis for the German people’s not looking down on others. In the future, to improve on such a result even more, MIM is going to favor opening the borders to immigrants instead of gradually sending more and more ‘foreigners’ home, as happened with Soviet troops trickling back to the USSR during the occupation of Germany. Where possible, immigrant workers and tourist members of the national bourgeoisie of the Third World may serve as a basis for going further in transformation than eastern Germany did.(2)

Germany faced a much greater devasation than the United $tates of today does, but it did not re-proletarianize. Likewise, neither is the United $tates “polarizing” politically through a re-proletarianization during the current economic crisis. That is the left-wing of parasitism’s delusion.

The Tea Party movement senses that the economy used to run without such a federal deficit and now seeks to reclaim that state of the economy. It is far from what the left-wing of parasitism had in mind in an economic crisis, but it is exactly what we said would happen without something even more devasting than what Germany faced.

It is important that the international united front not be fooled by prattle in the United $tates. There is a long and difficult task ahead. Substantial change can only be imposed from outside. The best that can be done is to contain Amerikan decadence and perhaps reform the anarchy of production somewhat. The central class question cannot be resolved until the joint dictatorship of the proletariat of the oppressed nations arrives.

We cannot say that anti-Amerikanism is a principle for all time or even the entirety of capitalism. 200 years ago, Amerikans were not the plurality of the international exploiter class. 600 years ago the First Nations lived without the settlers.

Today, the Amerikans are the plurality of the world’s exploiters. Amerikkkans are the first 5% of the world one should think of as the problem of reaction. From this class analysis flows a strategy of anti-Amerikkkanism.

Mao taught us to oppose the imperialist wars in the imperialist countries while supporting People’s Wars in the Third World. The anti-Amerikkkan strategy also encapsulates these principles in a way that other strategic approaches or non-approaches cannot.

When one decides an important political question based on intra-individual comparisons and not on class forces, one is a Liberal whether one knows it or not. Anglo-Saxon pragmatism or a lack of principles and scientific guidance often says to choose “the lesser evil,” as in lesser evils among individuals. This approach is wrong unless the individuals actually represent different class forces.

Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama are both Black liberal Democrats. They represent the same class forces in Amerika and support the same 50%+1 strategy. One abandons social movement principles whenever one says to cover up group oppression to suit a subjective intra-individual preference.

MIM is calling for Barack Obama to be exposed to the world. This is suitable because of what has gone wrong in diplomacy. There is no exploited nation that should negotiate with the United $tates if the United $tates will not at least deal in political currency.

Recently, Congressional Republicans chided Obama for taking a hard verbal stance on I$rael’s settlements in East Jerusalem.(1) This problem indicates why it is wrong to get involved in lesser-evilism. Where displacements and euphemisms abound, the two parties easily make trades among themselves and avoid change. They also protect Amerika’s reputation.

When two parties take part in peace negotiations, both risk their reputations. The Peoples’ Wars risk falling apart, but Amerikans take part without risking anything.

Partisanship is not a substitute for anti-Amerikkkanism as a strategic path to creating a stable bridge to diplomacy. In 2008, someone was able to tarnish me in the midst of
my attempts to assist Palestinian negotiations, and from all appearances, that effort via my third lyncher was to benefit a Democratic Party campaign, partisanship. We followers of Lenin and Mao have to think how it is inside rich countries that we create stable support for political solutions ending occupations and wars.

Those of us for the status quo in Amerikan foreign policy favor partisanship, in which all political capital for change dies in an exchange of favors between the RNC and DNC. The exchange could end up being domestic issues for domestic issues.

Even on the surface, such a path disables what according to Rasmussen Reports is the largest segment of the U.$. political population, the independent section. The independents supporting the peace movement have no choice but to go through the lesser-evils-two-party system say the Anglo-Saxon pragmatists. That is wrong and unfair to independents wishing to sponsor a peace movement.

In contrast, we anti-Amerikkkans see something else and better. The social movement advances not by handing out salaries paid for by Third World peoples. The social movement advances by exposing Amerikkkanism regardless of the individual political leaders. Instead of obsessing whether or not Obama is a tad better than Jackson or vice-versa, one should seek to bring to light group level truths, regardless of which individual is in power.

The anti-war wing of the Democratic Party has been ineffective these past 100 years. Partisanship would only be worth something if the Democratic Party’s anti-war wing managed to take up anti-Amerikkkanism as a strategy for the peace movement and diplomacy.

MIM does not believe anti-Amerikkkanism is too much to sell to Liberals. After all, there are a variety of Black liberal Democrats who could replace Obama, and that is exactly what makes the anti-Amerikkkan strategy a possibility, an improved approach to diplomacy than what the Democratic Party has offered so far. There is always another individual with roughly the same Democratic Party ideology available. Democrats should realize that and incorporate that thinking in their diplomacy.

The exploited nations will not and should not come to the peace table without minimum possibilities of political chips in play. Finding individualists willing to take up a Democratic Party career is easy, while political chips that would keep someone at the negotiating table are rare. Without the threat of a loss of Amerikan reputation and without prompt exposure of Amerikkkanism when negotiations break down and end, there is no reason for exploited nations to negotiate with U.$. imperialism: they can only lose.

By Aesopian quoting of snippets from the late 1990s, a number of Democratic and Republican pundits in the media have shown that they have seen my POLITICAL efforts against fascism and racism just prior to 9/11. I have stressed how lynching contributed to the Afghan and Iraq wars.

Yet, secret services and cross-racial rape accusations have been factors in wars since before capitalism started. The economic world led by Alan Greenspan at the time of 9/11 was more unique to capitalism and may prove to generate greater historical interest than 9/11 itself.

The left-wing of parasitism in the West was constantly advocating that activists bash their heads on a wall of concrete a mile thick, the labor aristocracy. Bush carried only the white vote in 2004 and McCain took the white high school grad vote by 58% in 2008, and still these pseudo-leftists did not get a clue. All these decades, the pseudo-left attacked capitalism at its strong point, the labor aristocracy and missed the weak spot, because the weak spot involved a blow to our egos here in the imperialist countries.

MIM’s repeated analyses showed that there was no exploitation of the white working class; hence, it was a petty-bourgeoisie. The ones sounding most similar to us concluded that was reason to lynch MIM and obtain support for a liberal Democratic minority that way.

Finally in 2008, the class struggle broke through against capitalism’s true weak spot, precisely identified by MIM and no thanks to the left-wing of parasitism. International exploitation reached a point where our Ponzi economy came tumbling down.

For this, Alan Greenspan has received the blame of allowing a housing bubble and a dollar that was too high. He correctly replied that within the rules of capitalism as they existed, the savings of the Third World came online and made low interest days inevitable. He was only wrong in crediting that factor while giving the technological boom of the Internet too much credit. The Internet was not the reason for the Clinton budget surplus or prosperity.

Greenspan could use his power at the Fed, but as he pointed out in The Age of Turbulence he would not be able to move the interest rate market around as much as people on the outside thought and even if he did, there was no guarantee that the critics would have been right about the consequences.

The innovation of Greenspan was to leave behind severe cycles of money tightening. He enjoyed good periods of apparently long economic growth in the United $tates. Greenspan seemed unlike most economists and prior central bankers to that degree.

Greenspan correctly understood the monetization struggle without calling it that. His policies seized for the United $tates and the West generally the most surplus-value from the Third World possible. This became apparent to finance ministers after the fact when they looked at how home equity loans could be used to purchase imports from the Third World. The asset bubble was not just a speculative bubble: it brought real goods into the United $tates.

It was only thanks to the ineptitude of the left-wing of parasitism and all the blocks thrown in the way of a MIM-type analysis that Greenspan succeeded too spectacularly. The United $tates gave the Third World (China, Mexico etc.) Wall Street traded stock in companies selling Third World produced goods. Simultaneously, Greenspan set about to make such assets worthless without knowing it.

The greater the monetization of U.$. housing and stock assets, the more Third World goods the United $tates could get for them. Along these lines, both federal and private sector deficits played their role.

In the wreckage we have now, the true defenders of the Democratic Party are Paul Krugman, Robert Reich and other Keynesians. MIM’s concerns must still as yet appear peripheral, because we have not developed the intellectual school of thought to replace the old ones. Peripheral is still a step up from invisible.

To keep us calm, and massage our “animal spirits,” Krugman and others tell us that Obama is a Republican-lite, who should be doing even more deficit spending to avoid a Japan-style “lost decade.” Yet the fact is that February federal spending set a record deficit of $221 billion,(1) a large number by any standard. MIM is told that Obama thinks just like us; yet, he set the record deficit. Meanwhile, we hear that Iran opposes all Marxism, but it recognizes dollar robbery when it sees it.

Clinton Labor Secretary Reich tells us that new jobs when they arrive will be at lower wages. The Keynesians are hoping China and others will step up consumption to stimulate global aggregate demand. It’s hard to see the “labor market clearing” any other way at the moment. Where we might intersect with some Keynesians sometimes is where we see new demand coming from. Ironically, labor unions concerned with U.$. workers on the bottom might also support us for our anti-dollar stand, if they ever put aside their mafia special interest thinking long enough.

MIM’s approach is different from the old thinking of unions and Keynesians. We wonder whether non-finance dominated economies of the world can arrange a new capitalist synthesis. I suspect that they can, even as the imperialist countries we call finance-dominated are out of gas. The question is whether the investor class can manage the financial struggles. Lately, the investors do seem able.

If the BRICS and other non-rich country economies cannot arrange a new synthesis for capitalism, two political factors might be internalized racism and intra-proletarian ethnic strife. Internalized racism will involve an attempt at going back to doing business with the United $tates as before the financial crisis. It will amount to Asian investors in particular coming to believe that they cannot do better elsewhere; hence, they will go back to loaning Amerikkka money to occupy Asian countries.

The top three foreign investors in U.S. treasuries abroad are China, Japan and the oil producers (Russia counted separately.) Hong Kong by itself sometimes holds more U.S. Treasuries than Britain, currently in fourth place.(2)

Intra-proletarian ethnic strife is another obstacle to the relaxed economic integration needed for a new capitalist synthesis apart from the West. Sum total it boils down to whether some aspects of business-related racism are higher in the rest of the world or in dealing with the United $tates. If the rest of the world is more internationalist than the United $tates, there will be a political basis for going beyond capitalism as it exists, within capitalism.

Whether the non-Western capitalist countries can integrate more closely is important to establishing socialism, not directly, but in understanding geopolitics and class struggle as they really exist. If the investment class cannot work business relations outside the United $tates in a less racist way, then the way is cleared to intensified contradictions of either socialism or barbarism, barbarism being an extension of the world the United $tates has already created where pornography consumption and war consumption continue to increase as distinctive features of the economy.

For us at MIM, it is unlikely that U.$. wages will reduce to the level where “labor markets clear,” if political anti-Amerikanism and a new capitalist synthesis are on the ascendant. The U.$. economy can only change directions 10 and 20 years from now, and that provided only there is a determined change in political direction now. Parasitism sometimes guised as political correctness is too deeply culturally entrenched in unproductive aspects.

Nonetheless, anti-Amerikanism and a new global capitalist division of labor provide the longest term chances of lengthening the survival of capitalism. This current movement is conditioned by the international proletariat but led by the national bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations.

Should that national bourgeoisie fail we hope to see that national bourgeoisie fail in such a way as to awaken the exploited. When the investor class returns to Ponzi schemes and U.$.-style militarism, the international proletariat must launch a variety of cultural movements bringing the emphasis back to the Third World. The reason this may in fact happen is that the national bourgeoisie must picture the U.$. labor aristocracy on the one hand and the exploited of their own countries on the other hand.

The small-minded small exploiters of the West have no end of fantasies of turning other countries into parking lots. Those petty exploiters will take a salary for teaching oppression in schools or videotaping their own sex acts if we let them.

The internalized racism of the international proletariat only goes so deep. Infatuations with Amerika can only be temporary as real conflicts of interest sharpen. Even as the national bourgeoisie protects its own rule, it should educate the exploited to its group interests against the petty Amerikan exploiters. Such a struggle occurs naturally as a cultural rejection of the lifestyle of the Western petty-bourgeoisie. Injecting the economic element into this cultural struggle guarantees its success.

In the end it is a question of erring to the side of the Western labor aristocracy or the side of the Third World exploited. When the investor class and national bourgeoisie decides this question, it decides its class alliances. If the national bourgeoisie fails in resisting Amerika, it should hope to fall to socialist revolution, not slavish subservience to Western culture.

First he got the Saudis. Then Obama symbolically offered a corrupt deal regarding his own power and 9/11, thereby weakening Palestinian cards.

Now it’s no surprise that Gordon Brown is backing the Iraq War up and down the line as he heads to the finish line in the campaign. He had to make a campaign decision and we at MIM understand that.

“‘Gordon Brown took a major political gamble today by describing Tony Blair’s decision to go to war in Iraq as ‘the right decision for the right reasons’ and insisting that ‘everything that Mr Blair did during this period, he did properly’.”(1)

The “Guardian” article concerned also ends with some provisos.

True, Brown had to take blame for the campaign. Brown was too high-ranking at the time not to. It will have to be left to some Conservatives or Liberal Democrats to say they opposed the Iraq War.

The timing of this latest Brown admission is unfortunate, because Obama is offering a deal to actors regarding 9/11 at Palestinian expense.

In the midst of the dealing, Karl Rove made a comment about a “poison dagger” at the heart of the Bush presidency concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.(2) Suddenly thereafter we see the “Guardian” cheering for the Iraq War in the headlines no less: “Brown is at his best with his back to the wall – as he was today at Iraq inquiry.”

“This was Good Gordon as opposed to Bad Brown: firm in his views, unwavering in asserting that the cabinet had been right to back the war – and that he had never let the army down.”(3) On the same day, Mark Weisbrot publishes another article complaining about Hillary Clinton and justifying lynching. One would suppose it could not get more obvious that Obakian-Weisbrot-Kasama-Rove=justifications for Iraq and Afghan wars, the Patriot Act, non-closure of Gitmo etc.

Hours after Rove got done talking about a dagger, the “Guardian” bled sympathy for Brown: “It is an old Westminster cliche that Gordon Brown is best when his back is pressed against the wall, a political dagger at his throat.”(3)

I will just remind readers that the proposed Obama deal is not going to work. Everyone knows that in campaign 2008, all that Obama had to do was unite the Hillary Clinton voters with his voters and the primary vote totals showed that he was on his way to trouncing the combined Republican field. In other words, the primaries boded well for the general election, but Clinton was on the ballot not Bush. Clinton was the one Obama needed peace with especially since the option of Palin was possible and taken for McCain’s VP. And anyway, the NPR stories and USA Today editorial were about a brother, not an uncle. The everyone has an uncle routine is not going to work.